The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. That is how the marketplace of ideas works. We float our ideas in the marketplace, and we see which idea sells.

Some credible scholars say that making mass murderers famous motivates other mass murderers. (One might even argue that this article is part of the problem). Elliot Rodger sent his lengthy diatribe to the media before he went on his killing spree -- correctly predicting that his actions would propel his ideas (such as they were) into the marketplace of ideas on a digital billboard larger than he could ever have enjoyed had he not amplified them with his psychotic rampage. Accordingly, should we not silence him? Wipe his words from the Internet forever? Let him be forgotten?

Responsible journalism is hard. It isn't public relations. A responsible journalist digs for the truth, she doesn't just take her subject's agenda and run with it. That isn't journalism, that's "gossip," and like all gossip, it doesn't do anything positive for anyone.

But, the notion of an American citizen going to jail for a nonviolent political protest is utterly antithetical to what this country is all about. It is a disgrace. Officer Coronado is a disgrace for arresting her. The prosecutor is a disgrace for charging her. The jurors are disgraces for convicting her.

The government should not be in the business of deciding what is moral, immoral or offensive. The section of the trademark act in question in this case is a leftover from Victorian times, and is used now primarily, I would argue, (and have argued) to promote social agendas with coercive censorship. I do not trust any government to tell me what I can and cannot handle. The marketplace of ideas will do that for us.

Let us remember that those who kill innocent victims do not do so simply because they wish them dead -- terrorism is about killing a few to strike fear into many. Terrorism is a form of activism coupled with narcissism.

Most might think that in America, you can freely publish what you wish, then (and now) an over-zealous prosecutor can put you on trial simply because the government does not like your art. And, there is no way to know if your content is “obscene” and thus punishable by prison, until after a jury rules that it is so.

Speech is presumptively protected. And, while there were decisions at one time that prohibited speech that had the tendency to produce negative results, those were thoroughly wiped away in 1969 in the landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Marc Randazza argues that restricting Anglin’s trolling would set a dangerous precedent. Anglin “has every right to ask people to share their views, no matter how abhorrent those views are,” Randazza told. “This is the shitty price we have to pay for freedom.”

I represent Anglin in this suit. I realize that Anglin’s story is full of controversy, hate, and nationalistic views, which he reportedly spread among his followers. However, the court may be on the verge of creating a dangerous precedent when deciding this lawsuit.

To the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge, no pony has ever attacked an American politician—and presumably the Secret Service would be able to intervene, should Mr. Supreme try and find some way to break that drought in pony-on-politician violence."

Brunetti does not necessarily create an automatic sea-change in the federal trademark registration regime. We will need to see what the USPTO does in the short term in response to the decision. If it allows previously “immoral or scandalous” marks to proceed to registration, then we should expect to see a flood of trademark applications for years' worth of a backlog of improperly-denied registrations. If the USPTO keeps sitting on its hands, however, that rush will likely be delayed until the Supreme Court (if it takes the case) decides the issue.

"Neither the Court nor I were without sympathy for the family's privacy concerns. We give far too little attention to privacy in this country. But, the fact is that the judge's order was breathtakingly unconstitutional and this aggression could not stand, man."

On the recent hearing in Missoula federal court Marc Randazza and Mat Stevenson represented Andrew Anglin. Mr. Randazza said “I’d like to see my client’s activism defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Whatever the rule you lay down for the Nazi here, you also lay down for the civil rights activist.”

"There is absolutely nothing legally actionable about [Allman’s] statement. It is clearly rhetorical hyperbole, which is 100% protected by the First Amendment. I think there would be no legal repercussions should someone write this about Queen Elizabeth or the President or anyone else. Of course, that does not mean that some abject moron of a lawyer wouldn’t take the case — and lord knows that Florida [where Hogg lives] has a bumper crop of them. But any lawsuit would be foolish and wouldn’t last long."

"In diversity cases where there is a conflict between the laws of the states of the parties, the federal court has to determine which state’s laws to apply. New York federal courts will use a multi-factor test to determine which state has the “most significant relationship” to the legal dispute, and will use that state’s laws."

"This [case] looks much more like the purview of the left, at least in the West..." "You see this with people on the right being systematically ‘no platformed’, not just from media sites, but from YouTube, from Facebook, from Twitter and now from PayPal and Stripe. If any company decides that it doesn’t like the kind of thing you have to say, then you are off."

Marc Randazza shared his opinions regarding the matter he discussed in his CNN article about Mark Meechan on Alex Jones Show (May 5, 2018)

"I don’t really care whose free speech it is that is being trampled. I will stand up to protect them, whether it’s Randa Jarrar who I find to be one of the most reprehensible human beings in America, whether it’s the Nazi party or the KKK, or whether it’s the communist party. Every one of them has an equal right to be there and the intellectual texture of America, the strength of America, the idea of America erodes and begins to grow cancer if we don’t protect that."

“If we discriminate against them, who is to say that Muslims or Jews aren’t next? I personally believe all religion is superstition, so who is to criticize if one group believes in the lord of the underworld or magic or whatever they want?”

Marc Randazza frequently offers pro bono help to people threatened with various forms of censorship. I've been co-counsel with him in a couple of such cases, and know that he offers top-notch work combined with frank advice. The real trick with seeking pro bono help from a famous lawyer is that some of them want to resolve the matter in a way that contributes to their fame, whether or not that's best for the client. I've seen, from personal experience, that Randazza advises clients based on their own best interests, not based on what will increase Marc's First Amendment badass fame.

Randazza’s clients have included adult entertainment websites; the 8chan online message board, a popular forum for racist internet trolls; and Mike Cernovich, a right-wing author and attorney who has promoted a conspiracy theory about Democrats running a child-sex slavery ring from a Washington pizza restaurant’s basement.

So when the current flavor of neo-Nazis (did you think they went away while there’s still tin foil to be had?) was put to the test, who was there to call? Marco. Not because Marco likes Nazis. Not because Marco thinks their conduct swell. But because somebody had to fight for free speech, even for these guys, for the same reason the ACLU did so in 1978.

Marc Randazza, the managing partner of Randazza Legal Group and a well-known attorney, handles cases related to freedom of speech and intellectual property issues. Randazza has emphasized that government punishment of speech should never be tolerated, yet there are still instances where citizens have been arrested for speech.

Marc Randazza, the managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group - the Las Vegas based law firm that focuses on the First Amendment, intellectual property, and copyright infringement cases, is representing the defendant. Randazza filed an opposition motion, saying that the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.

Our First Amendment and Intellectual property counsel is Marc Randazza and the Randazza Legal Group. Mr Randazza came to our attention when people started referring to him as a "First Amendment Bad Ass". This was a long time ago, when he won his infamous arbitration against Glenn Beck, when Beck tried to shut down a critical website.